W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > August 2002

Minutes from the QA WG 2002-08-14 teleconference

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:04:30 -0700
Message-ID: <B3F0DACD72892E4DB7E8296C6C9FC2F60507536C@red-msg-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-qa@w3.org>

QA Working Group Teleconference
Wednesday, 14-August-2002, 10:00am EDT.
--
Scribe: 
Kirill Gavrylyuk

Attendees:

(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
(DM) David Marston (IBM)

Regrets: 
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(DH) Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C - Webmaster)

Absent: 
(JM) Jack Morrison (Sun Microsystems)

Summary of New Action Items:
- AI-20020814-1 KD: Gather the patent information and publish a patent
Disclosure page.
- AI-20020814-2 LH: Next Monday, 19th to publish the new WG draft.
- AI-20020814-3 DD(not yet coordinated with DD): Clarify the wording for
the checkpoints of the Gd 14 and 15 , provide  definition of the test
assertion and mark-up grammar. (Immediate changes are done by Lofton).
- AI-20020814-4 All: Verify the draft proposed status section for the
Spec Guidelines. LH to send email to ask the WG by 8/16 (done)
- AI-20020814-5 LR: to propose the definition for the Use Case and User
Scenario. (done)
- AI-20020814-6 LH: Split the Ck 1.3 into 2.Leave one as "Include
Examples" and add another "Have an example for each test assertion"
where mapping may not be 1:1.
- AI-20020814-7 DM: Circulate the proposal to reword the checkpoints
that require a spec to mention explicitly if the dimensions of
variability are not used. 


Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Aug/0085.html 
Previous Telecon Minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2002Aug/0053.html 

Minutes: 
LH: Asked WG members to join the teleconference on time. 
LH: Moving to Agenda. Our target is to publish spec GL on Monday Aug
26.[Action Item] Next Monday, 19th LH to publish the new WG draft. 
LH: The new pubrules require the info on patent disclosure. Everyone who
has not sent it before, has to send KD a statement regarding the patent
disclosure.

KD: I will first look at what I already have from the Call for
Review/Call for Participation. If I do not find the information, I will
contact people individually. I will set up the page. I do not anticipate
any, but if problems occur then we'll have to create a Patent Group.

LH: Let's move on. Going through the checkpoints that had a praticular
request. The only requests were made by LH.

LH: Gd 14, Gd15. The bar is rather high - pri 1. Should all the 5
checkpoints be pri1?  

MS: Re the Ck 14.1 about endorsed grammar. Why does it say "If
applicable"? One can not endorse it.
KG: To add: we do not give any definition of the endorsed grammar.
LH: Agree. DOes anybody agree to remove "If Applicable"
Peter: [Re: no definition of endorsed grammars] We do talk about the
endorsed grammars. But in a pretty vague manner.
LH: Do we change the pri to Pri2 or do we keep it Pri1? 
LR and KG proposed to change to Pri2.
LH: Anyone objects? Agreed to change it.

LH: Let's look first at 15.1 and 15.2? 

Discussed 15.1, Agreed to clarify and to change to "Include test
assertions into specification", leaving it at the Pri1. And 

15.2 will be a Pri2 and say "Do it using the granular grammar, e.g.
using mark-up to mark the test assertions inline"

LH: Ck 14.2. Anyone object to drop it for the 14.2 to Pri2? 
No objections. Changed to Pri2.

LH: Ck 14.3. Seems like it should be lowered to Pri2 because we lowered
all the rest of the Gd 14. The Gd requires a lot of work, but we
shouldn't try to accomplish it before the publication. Dimitris is the
author of Gd 14 and Gd 15 and he is not available right now.
KD: We may put an action item "Clarify the wording for the checkpoints
of the Gd 14 and 15 , provide definition of the test assertion and mark
up". Need to contact Dimitris.

LH: Done with Gd 14 and 15. There are many checkpoints regarding the
entries in the table of contents. And the priorities are inconsistent.
Should they be of the same priorities? I suggest to leave 10.3 to Pri1
and lower all the rest to Pri2.
KG: Second this.
LH: No one objects. Lowered.

LH: Ck 9.1 and 9.3 are relative but have different pri. Suggest to raise
the pri of 9.1 to 1. Objections? Agreed.

LH: Ck 8.1 have pri2, but I think it ought to be pri1. Objections?
Agreed.

LH: Ck 5.1. The key is "universal", this is asking for the cross spec
summary of all the requirements. Are there any issues with pri 1? Agreed
to leave it as is.

LH: Asked people to verify the draft proposed status section. One of the
decisions we made was that in the status section we flag what kind of
feedback we wanted and we also flag specific issues. Right now I don't
have strong idea of what specific issues do we have.
KG: How about adding a disclaimer that we may have not defined all the
terms used in this document.
KG: I had several issues when reviewing the XML Protocol SOAP1.2
specification. Will send them later.
LH: [Action item] Will send an email and ask to post all the suggested
issues to be added to the status by Friday 8/16.

LH: Ck 1.2 and 1.3. Issue 72. There are 2 issues: one is the word
"normative". 

AT: Propose to add that unless otherwise specified, the Use Cases are
informative.
All agreed.

LH: Propose to remove the first sentence in the note of the 1.2.

LR: I'll propose the definition for the Use Case and User Scenario.
[Action item]

DM: propose to split the Ck 1.3 into 2. Leave one as "Include Examples"
and add another "Have an example for each test assertion" where mapping
may not be 1:1.
LH: I'll take an action item to do that. [Action item]

LH: Gd 4. There was an issues raised by Al Gilman regarding atomicity of
levels.
[LH and DM discussed ]
Resolution: Leave it as a recommendation by clean-up the language. Add
atomicity to the bullent list of Ck 4.3

DM: The requirement on the conformance clause is that it is be
searchable from the TOC. We could add verbiage to 10.3, for any
dimension of variability that you don't use, state it in the Conformance
clause.  

KG: Objected against the sentences that require explicitly stating that
Dimension of variability is unsupported. The reason is, that with
revisions of the Guidelines document, new dimensions of variability may
come up. And all the specs published to-date will be automatically
non-conformant to the Spec Guidelines.

DM: Proposed to make all such requirements pri2. DM will circulate a
proposal. 

Adjourned at 11:30am EDT.
Received on Friday, 23 August 2002 18:05:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:59 GMT